Sir Edmund cites 'public interest'

'I would not be complicit in anything remotely approaching a cover-up' - Sir Edmund Thomas. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Retired judge Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas said yesterday that he had not been willing to be part of any "cover-up" of information relevant to accusations of bias against another judge.

"I would not be complicit in anything remotely approaching a cover-up or withholding information that was relevant to the issue of apparent bias," he told the High Court at Wellington.

Sir Edmund made his comments in response to claims this week by Justice Bill Wilson's lawyer that Sir Edmund had breached a confidence akin to privilege and accused him of "dishonourable" actions.

Sir Edmund's written submission said his actions in the matter were in the public interest.

Justice Wilson is seeking a judicial review of a finding by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner that the judge should face a judicial conduct panel. He would be the first judge to do so under the judicial conduct laws passed in 2004.

Sir Edmund was one of three complainants last year claiming that Justice Wilson made inadequate disclosures of his business relationship with Alan Galbraith.

The QC was appearing before him against the Saxmere company (Saxmere lost), and later in the Supreme Court when it was dealing with the allegations of bias.

Justice Wilson made an informal and general disclosure to a Saxmere lawyer.

The Supreme Court first found no bias, but with new evidence found there was an "indirect indebtedness" of Justice Wilson to Mr Galbraith.

Commissioner Sir David Gascoigne in his report said Justice Wilson owed Mr Galbraith no money.

However, Sir David said the issue of Justice Wilson's disclosures to the Supreme Court needed further investigation by the judicial conduct panel.

Sir Edmund heard details about the relationship in July last year that concerned him when Mr Galbraith's lawyer, Jim Farmer, QC, sought advice from Sir Edmund as a friend and respected former Court of Appeal judge.

They also engaged in an email exchange - revealed by the Herald last month - with Sir Edmund telling Dr Farmer that he would approach Chief Justice Sian Elias himself with the information if others didn't, which he eventually did.

But Sir Edmund said he had made it clear from the outset that there were conditions attached to his exchange with Dr Farmer.

"The qualifications and conditions which I stipulated from the outset and - a reading of the emails demonstrates - repeated ad nauseam, almost embarrassingly so ... that the conditions were there from the very outset that the integrity of the court and the judiciary had to come first."

He was adamant Saxmere should be entitled to apply for a rehearing.

Sir Edmund said in his statement that the disclosures Justice Wilson made in a letter to the Chief Justice on August 17 last year with some detail of the company Rich Hill Ltd, which he owned with Mr Galbraith, had not been included in the judge's subsequent statements to the court.

That meant that Saxmere would not have been informed of them when applying for a rehearing.

The judicial review was heard by Justices John Wild, Forrest Miller and Graham Lang.

They have reserved their decision.

JUSTICE WILSON'S CASE
* The law requires the Judicial Complaints Commissioner to give reasons he thinks referral to a judicial conduct panel is both necessary and justified, and that has not been done.

* One of the issues raised by the commissioner was not raised by him with the judge, offending against the principle of natural justice.

* The commissioner's report - and recommendation - should be quashed in its entirety and not revisited.

THE COMMISSIONER'S DEFENCE
* The forming of the panel is just one of five steps in the decision-making process designed to give the public confidence in the judicial system.

* Issues can be referred to the panel, not specified behaviour.

* The case should go to the panel and if Justice Wilson is cleared, he could return to the bench.